Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 1688 of 2012· [2013] KEELRC 244 (KLR)

Christine Adot Lopeyio v Wycliffe Mwathi Pere [2013] KEELRC 244 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Nairobi
10 July 2013
MMM. Mbaru
3,523 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that a tenant collecting rent for her landlord in exchange for free housing and commission was not an employee.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sued the respondent landlord in the Industrial Court seeking Kshs. 2,497,500.00 comprising one month's salary in lieu of notice, withheld salary, house and commuter allowances of Kshs. 5,000.00 per month for nine years, unpaid annual leave for nine years, lost earnings to age 60, and compensation for unfair termination. She claimed she was employed from 2003 as caretaker of the respondent's rental houses in Ongata Rongai, collecting rent, cleaning and attending to errands for Kshs. 7,500.00 per month, and was summarily evicted on 23rd July 2012 without notice or reasons. The respondent denied the employment relationship, asserting the claimant was his tenant and occasional rent-collecting agent compensated by free housing, commission and permission to run water and kiosk businesses. The court framed the central question as whether the relationship was a contract of service or a contract for service. Reviewing the definitions in section 2 of the Employment Act, 2007 and the Industrial Court Act, 2011, and applying the control, integration, economic reality and mutuality of obligation tests, the court found the claimant was not under the respondent's control, was not subject to his rules, was economically independent, and lacked mutual promises of stable engagement. The arrangement was characterised as an undocumented landlord-agent relationship amounting to a contract for a service. The claim was dismissed with the claimant ordered to pay 50% of the respondent's costs. The respondent's allegation of unremitted rents was not determined for want of a counter-claim.

Key legal issues

#
01

Distinction between contract of service and contract for service

Holding

The claimant was not an employee; her arrangement with the landlord was a contract for a service as an occasional agent, compensated by free housing and commission

Reasoning

The court considered the statutory definitions of employee, employer and contract of service under section 2 of the Employment Act, 2007 and the Industrial Court Act, 2011, then applied the established tests: control, integration, economic reality and mutuality of obligation. It found the claimant was not solely under the respondent's control, was not subjected to his rules and procedures, was economically independent (running water and kiosk businesses through her family), and lacked mutual promises of stable future engagement, and that no wages were recorded in the rent book she kept.

p. 5
02

Consequences of undocumented landlord-agent relationships

Holding

The practice of landlords appointing a tenant as an undocumented rent-collecting agent, even with commission, does not create an employment relationship

Reasoning

The court took judicial notice of the predominant practice among landlords of taking one tenant as an informal agent without documentation. It cautioned that even where commission is payable it should be clearly outlined, and held that such an arrangement, being occasional and uncompensated by wages, falls outside the definitions of employment in the Employment Act and Industrial Court Act.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Whether a relationship is one of service or for service is determined on the facts of each case, applying the control, integration, economic reality and mutuality of obligation tests
  • Informal, undocumented landlord-agent arrangements in which a tenant collects rent do not of themselves constitute a contract of service under the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed
  2. 2.The claimant is directed to pay the respondent 50% of his costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Section 2 (definitions of employee, employer, contract of service)
  • Industrial Court Act, 2011Section 2
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under the Industrial Court Act, 2011 over employees and employers

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (25)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Christine Adot Lopeyio v Wycliffe Mwathi Pere [2013] KEELRC 244 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Cause No. 1688 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/244/eng@2013-07-10

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.